1) that door doesn't seem to have been open during the assault, and according to the official story most of the shooting happened from the other side. What would be the reason to simulate bullet holes on the untouched side, and under the door?

2) for decades, the only pins available in stationery shops in Italy have been these:

they're not very strong or practical and it's fairly easy to make a lot of holes in a picture especially if you try to make it hold up on a hard surface. If the surface was too hard, the little pins would break, ripping the paper in the process. Sometimes only one of the pins would break and your photo would hold up only by two or one pin.

3) I actually found a higher-res version of the same wikimedia pic posted by Simon:

you can compare the holes with the bullet holes seen on the other side of the car, in the pic posted above in this post.

I stand by my point that these holes are physical holes in the paper of the photo, whatever might be the reason why they are there (maybe this picture was up on the wall with others, below or next to it, and the multiple sets of three holes stand for different pins hammered next to each other, to hold the different pictures.)

Besides, it seems to me that this hole in particular

is "floating" in mid-air...

4) why we don't see holes in the upper part? No idea. Maybe the shot was fairly taller and the upper part has been cut in the digital copy; maybe the upper part was held at the corners, also cut from the digital copy.

5) as to the "patch" you are talking about, brian, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Keep in mind that the two pictures posted by Simon are two different shots (as it is visible from the poilceman boot in the back), so what we see on the door is probably nothing but the shadow of someone standing next to the photographer.

2) for decades, the only pins available in stationery shops in Italy have been these:

I see no 3-hole circular pattern in this image.

The patterns were never circular as the pins would bend and stretch the paper holes irregularly. I have actually tens of old pictures who look exactly like this photo, with regular and irregular three-pins holes. But why discussing about pins? have you looked at the picture I reposted in hi-res? Do you seriously believe someone intended those holes to look like bullet holes? As different as they are from the bullet holes on the other side? With one hole floating in mid air? With a door which was closed on that side according to the official story? And what would even be the point of this?

brianv wrote:The first thing that jumps out at me nonho is this. By your own argument isn't it equally possible that these "bulletholes" may have been done by ...

these?

I'll come back to the other points.

Yes if you intend to put up on a wall a picture by pinning it in the center rather than to the sides.

Do you think those holes look the same by the way? And I ask you what I asked HonestlyNow: what would be point of this oh so elaborate forgery (which nobody noticed for 40 something years despite the countless trials and investigations) when there is an official story to serve which says that the shooting happened from the other side? Wouldn't be logical to forge bullet holes on that side and not on the wrong side, on this one picture only, which btw shows a surface which was covered by the door during the shooting?

Let's put it another way: Let's find one single source (investigative, judicial, from a blog, anything) that says that those holes in that one picture from the right side are actually bullet holes. If anybody is claiming this, then we'd have fakery on our hands. Until then, in my opinion all we have are some holes in a scanned piece of paper.

That said, if you want to argue that the other "official" bullet holes are fake you're welcome and I'll be all ears.

brianv wrote:Drawing Pins are more for pinning stuff to boards etc. Are you saying Italy never had Drawing Pins ?

yep. That's what I'm saying. I can tell you since I grew up in the 70s and 80s in Italy and we never had anything but those three-pin thingies. Sure there probably were other kinds, but those were the most popular and the most common and I remember countless fights with the hammer and the wall, trying to put up posters in my teenager room using those shitty things.When the pin came off, which was often, you had to move it slightly to the side because it could not go in the same holes: this quickly reduced the corners of your poster to a emmenthal.

brianv wrote:Drawing Pins are more for pinning stuff to boards etc. Are you saying Italy never had Drawing Pins ?

yep. That's what I'm saying. I can tell you since I grew up in the 70s and 80s in Italy and we never had anything but those three-pin thingies. Sure there probably were other kinds, but those were the most popular and the most common and I remember countless fights with the hammer and the wall, trying to put up posters in my teenager room using those shitty things.When the pin came off, which was often, you had to move it slightly to the side because it could not go in the same holes: this quickly reduced the corners of your poster to a emmenthal.

But you did have compasses...

A question? In the images some of the holes have not completely penetrated, what do you reckon caused those? A change of mind?

I'm sorry I edited again, I did not realise there is a high res behind this image. The bloody thing is peppered in tiny holes from top to bottom, and the whole image looks like a cardboard cut out.

brianv wrote:A question? In the images some of the holes have not completely penetrated, what do you reckon caused those? A change of mind?

The bloody thing is peppered in tiny holes from top to bottom, and the whole image looks like a cardboard cut out.

Maybe this is what happens when you have photos on top of photos. The photo on top is penetrated by a pin that holds it up by going through a second picture, which is held by other pins. By the third picture the tips of the pin only scratch the surface. Just an idea. It is consistent with the fact that those signs are all in a nondescript area which could easily have been chosen to attach other pics on top of it. We should know who posted this originally (my guess is a journalist who had it up on his desk) and why there are holes in it.

You are right, there are a lot of marks on the picture, maybe there are explanations for this that go beyond these damn pins, but I still think we are looking at damage to a printed photo and not at signs of fakery.

Here we are, in 2016, 'arguing' about pins. I don't think we should be doing that - at this advanced stage of our common research / discovery-journey through the hard-to-imagine phoniness of most of this world's countless, "socially traumatic", media-reported events. Having said that, I do treasure your occasional 'devil's advocate' contributions - which remind me of the good ol' days when you questioned my analyses of NASA's Space Shuttles - remember? Also, and more to the point (of this thread), you may remember how you started questioning for yourself the media-released imagery of Aldo Moro's corpse depicted in that red Renault 4:

nonhocapito wrote:...it becomes crucial to find out how tall Aldo Moro really was. (corsarino, can you piece together the source for that information about Moro's height?). I had to make this post for intellectual honestly, since I argued before that it was not strange for Moro to fit into that trunk. I am not entirely sure anymore...[your bold-font emphasis, Nonho!]viewtopic.php?p=2357267#p2357267

Ok, so I'm (almost) willing to retract my "slam & dunk" quote regarding Gianni's (my old Roman friend and veteran researcher) finding - i.e. the image showing those round(ish) holes at the bottom of the Alfetta car. We simply have no way of knowing whether these holes are meant to be bullet holes - or if they are, as you contend, just caused by someone repeatedly stitching that photo on a wall with those 'Italian', triple-pins (puntine da disegno a tre punte). Your contention, in my humble opinion, is a bit weak - and here's why: firstly, and as our forum member "Honestly Now" rightly points out, there is no circular pattern of these supposed triple-pins - nor are any of those holes equidistant - as they should be if they were caused by such triple pins. Secondly, I well remember that back in my cartoonist/graphic designer days, I used these triple-pins to secure my drawings (and even photographs) upon a wooden plate - as I preferred them over the conventional single pins which, of course, punched an ugly, circular hole in my drawing paper. Those triple-pins (which, obviously, can never cause circular holes but just a thin / straight little slit) allowed me to 'wound' my drawings with only ONE of these three pins - the other two remaining outside of the edge of my drawing paper. But enough about these pins. Let us 'get real' and focus on what, in my opinion, really matters - regarding the alleged Aldo Moro 'kidnapping and shoot-out' in Via Fani, on March 16, 1978. Of course, what we (here on Cluesforum) should ask ourselves - with what we know now - are the following questions: 1:"Is there any evidence of this media-reported event to have been staged - with the active complicity of the news media ?"

The answer to these questions, as far as I can see, is a definite and resounding "yes" - for a number of reasons. See, Gianni is old enough to remember, very clearly, that the MAIN / "iconic" image first published in all / or most of the Italian newspapers was this:

Now, please note that the above image is a (180°) horizontally-flipped / or "mirrored" visual of the alleged crime scene. In fact, this image is - believe it or not - STILL TODAY (38 years later!) posted on the website of the Corriere Della Sera newspaper. NO ONE has, in 38 years, bothered to rectify this gross "mistake"! And this flipped image is STILL posted on the Corriere (one of the top Italian newspapers) in the context of a recent 'news story' about the investigations of the "polizia scientifica"! :source: http://roma.corriere.it/foto-gallery/cr ... resh_ce-cp

Here is the "ACTUAL / CORRECT view of the Via Fani event" which was, according to Gianni, released much later :

That's right: we are asked to believe that whoever first printed that 'original' photograph for public release, "mistakenly" (out of distraction ?) printed the negative film roll 'upside down'. Now, dear Nonho, do you really think that this is a credible hypothesis? That this was just an 'innocent mistake'? That the image of one of the most 'traumatic' events of recent Italian history was - "mistakenly" - printed AND released in a 'mirror-flipped' format?

Note that "EXTRA" bullet hole in the top / middle of the rear door (in both of the above images)- which is nowhere to be seen on the "official imagery of the Via Fani event". Here are two images from an official archive site. The EXTRA bullet hole (in the top / middle of the rear door) simply isn't there :

Lastly, it's worth mentioning that, according to the official narrative, the kidnapping of Aldo Moro started at 9:02am - and that "11" was the stated (although controversial) number of those supposed "Red Brigade tewwowists" who attacked his motorcade.

More ridiculous still is the media-reported story that "91 shots were fired [by the Red Brigade tewwowists] and 45 of these bullets succesfully hit their targets" (i.e. the alleged, tragically-killed 5 bodyguards of Aldo Moro).

Later on, the news media told us that Aldo Moro had been shot with 11 bullets:

Dear Simon, as I have stated more than once, I am ready to agree that fakery was at play in the Moro case. I am just not completely convinced that the event was entirely staged or that nobody died, and Moro also was not executed or sacrificed. And, OK, I was not convinced by the holes in the paper in that photo.However, the flipped photo is an interesting thing. Why was the photo flipped?

After a brief google search, here they are:

Flipped photo:

Corrected photo:

Why this gross "mistake"? I wonder.. could it have been to discourage from the start potential amateur investigators, by fundamentally disorienting them in the empirical observation of this theater...?

That extra bullet hole... you are right! It isn't there in the early photos. You are going to hate my explanation, but it is the only one that comes to mind at the moment to, like you say, play devil's advocate: could this be the result of a ballistic investigation? Some expert might have ordered this during one of the trials, to assure that the weapon and caliber used were such and such? And maybe, the result of the ballistic investigation was negative, since the hole looks much bigger, and capable of inflicting more damage to the body of the car and the paint, than all the other ones.

After all one extra bullet hole doesn't really say fakery in a time when, rather than doctoring photos, the Italian police could simple have shot a car and placed it there. No need to get confused about bullet holes then.

(In other words, what was the scenario? are we imagining that all these photos are completely artificial and the result of pre-computer era doctoring? But what would be the point? Wouldn't the italian police have at least the capability to block a street, place a few cars there and shot them, then calling the media? I am sure it had far higher capabilities, including the one of letting the infiltrated terrorist organization be deluded into the idea of actually having accomplished this.)

And about the numerology: yes the numerology is undoubtedly there: but isn't it possible that what it really says is "secret organization" "freemasonry" or whatever, not necessarily "fakery"?

I have stated elsewhere in this thread what is my impression regarding cases like the Moro case: the Moro case might be one of the last examples of a case where the secret/criminal establishment organizations actually bothered with committing some of the deeds in reality: something that a decade or two later, with PR agencies taking over the press, and with the new technologies, became unnecessary and too risky, as the countless obstacles in the deploying of the official story of the Moro case (starting with the meddling of the family in the investigation) showed. But of course I might be wrong in this.